Mitch... off topic but you have to see this story and watch the video...

http://cbs11tv.com/watercooler/watercooler_story_054093634.html

Mitch... here's a better video...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/25.html#a7298

Feel free to delete these posts... I thought this was too good to not share...

Haha, and you fancy yourself a military history buff! Everybody knows that mission was carried out by U.S. Army Sergeant Andrew Carter, a prisoner of war in Luft Stalag 13 near Hammelburg, Germany.

Hey, here's a historical question for you wingnut history experts: does anybody know whether FDR sold port security for Pearl Harbor to a Japanese company? Cause what could go wrong with that?

A question in return for you, AC, since you are obviously expert enough at history to be able to call your betters "Wingnuts": Who currently handles port security for US Navy bases? And how precisely has this changed since 1941?

Followup questions:
1) What part of the port *terminal operations* does the President/the Executive Branch currently own?
2) What part of the US Coast Guard's and the DHS's security duties are being "sold"?

Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Mitch, who can't apparently find anything relevant to write about in today's news e.g.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley.asp (where Bill Buckley agrees with John Murtha)

Now is relegated to making up history regarding FDR's intentions in Europe to try to create a ludicrous connection between daying Saddam was an "imminent threat" when he wasn't, as compared to Hitler, who was and no one denied or doubted.

The difference also goes to this, Hitler WAS a threat, Saddam wasn't (he in fact didn't have nuclear weapons, a program, fissile materials, heavy water, light water, spring water or laughing gass, so HoDean is unfortunately RIGHT whereas Mitch is unfortanately and sadly wrong, as well as apparently desperate enough to make up stories to try to justify his position. Mitch, exactly which nuclear program did we find? How close was Iraq to a nuclear weapon?

Oh, hey did you hear that FDR took money from the Japanese to sell Honalulu Harbor Operations to a Tojo lead Mitsubishi conglomerate that invested in FDR's brother's business and the company his dad used to head, as well as appoint the former director to head a major shipping department? No, well, unfortunately Bush did, whereas of course FDR didn't, and he didn't do it DURING the war, which of course, Bush did, while ignoring complaints from Homeland Security.

Ah well, the more things stay the same, the more things change, and truth are lies in Mitchworld.

PB

Here's the deal, P - I write about anything I want to write about. This is not a newspaper.

More on the Buckley deal later - there's more to it than meets the medialiberal spin-impaired thought process. But the capsule summary, P, is that you're wrong again.

More later.

Comedic license, Mitcharoo. I know Bush didn't actually sell port security to al Qaeda - he's not what you'd call a detail person, after all. It's just that he thinks it's OK that somebody else did.

By the way, Chertoff is doing you guys a lot of good. Shouldn't Bush be giving him a medal or a "Chertoff, you're doing a hell of a job!" right about now?

Angryclown blathers silly comparison between Pearl Harbor security and New York harbor stevedore functions.

Gee, if only FDR could have wire-tapped all those Japanese spies in Hawaii maybe 12/7/1941 could have been prevented.

Gee, you seem to know a lot about "New York harbor stevedore functions," Kerm. Spend a lot of time down by the waterfront do ya?

PB: Mitch, who can't apparently find anything relevant to write about in today's news

AK: Says Peeb, who can't apparaently find anything relevant to respond to in the post.

Start your own blog, little camper. It'll help you learn to write.

Believe it or not, we actually have a seaport in Minnesota. As for the AC threadjack topic, I have been paying attention and realize how silly your Pearl Harbor analogy was.

Hi AC.
Note that FDR didn't contract a Japanese for port security, He just sold them several hundred thousand metric tons of scrap metal which they were kind enough to return. Abet one chunk at a time.
Oddly enough that war was also about oil. FDR being a capitalist tool tried to strangle the Japanese economy by embargoing their oil from south asian oil fields. The nerve of some Imperialist tools, like Roosevelt. More then a few people took the the streets to protest "MR. Roosevelt's War". At least until their marching orders changed.

Do you also have bars that cater to lonely sailors Kerm? Cause that was the thrust of the joke. You know, hanging out by the docks renting out a little Kermy love by the quarter hour.

The point, Mitch, is that you've invented a fictitious issue. FDR NEVER offered to sell port operations, never declared Hitler a non-threat.

Write about whatever you want, but when you are relegated to inventing non-existent stories, you look pretty sad.

Don't care to admit that Houssien in fact didn't have a nuclear program, and wasn't an imminent threat, that's fine, duck it, but conflating that with Norwegian commando ops is not only ironic, it's dishonest.

You seem to be stuck in amber, living in World War II think when those involved in WWII stood up for things you revile - like fair days wage for fair days work - worker's rights - egalitarianism, etc.. and where the issues were much clearer both then, and in historical hindsight 60 years later. They made hard, but mostly right, choices BECAUSE they were grounded in respecting basic human dignity and opposing fascism (you know, totalitarianism and corporate control of government) - like I said, ironic. The funniest part is, most of those leaders would laugh your positions out of the room as short sighted and pretty much counter to their basic principles.

You then go on to argue that their actions validated your own sides in present day, when they do anything but. Hitler in FACT did have access to nuclear materials, scientists to make them, and had a program to do so. Houssien didn't. Bush claimed there was a risk of a "smoking hole in the ground" to justify war, and you say in fact that was NOT the justification - which is of course revisionistic history - something you attribute to Oliver Stone - another irony when you consider how actively you engage in it, justifying it under "anything to win" "politics is everything" jargon you constantly tout. You(neo-cons)have exploded the debt, but blame Clinton, you ignored terrorism, and looked for any way to attack Iraq, and falsely used 9/11 to justify a supposed broader war on terrorism and then went about ignoring most of the base sponsors (like Dubai) in order to attempt to setup your corporate croney state (Iraq), and involved us in a war on a non-threat where we are now in the middle of strife that is on the cusp of a civil war. Your party is corrupt beyond measure - for sale to the corporate interests - is in total control - and yet has failed to accomplish much of anything. You demonize community action - i.e. using the power of the community to address problems private charity or interest simply isn't large enough or appropriate to handle, and create a government of cronies - and the thing is, government is a necessary being for things beyond tarrifs and defense - if you think it isn't propose doing away with it publicly rather than simply populating it with folks who hate it, use it for personal profit, and are illiterate on the key issues to the point of being incompetent (like Sarbannes-Oxley).

PB

"The point, Mitch, is that you've invented a fictitious issue. FDR NEVER offered to sell port operations, never declared Hitler a non-threat."

Er, P? Read back and take a careful look at where, and by whom, that bit of farcicality got into the conversation. Note the "Name" associated with the person. Note that it wasn't "Mitch". Seeing a pattern, here?

"Write about whatever you want"

By your leave.

"but when you are relegated to inventing non-existent stories, you look pretty sad."

See above. Apply diagnosis.

Oh, and PB? The only story I've written, here, is the historical one, of the Norwegian Resistance throwing the Nazi nuke program permanently off course.

Are you saying that story is invented?

You lutefiskhawk, you!

Yes AC "Spend a lot of time down by the waterfront do ya?" was so subtle it almost eluded my dull mid-western wit. If only you had said "Spend a lot of time drinking down by the waterfront do ya?" it would have been much more obvious.
So how much does a quarter hour of Clown love go for these days?

Kermit propositioned: "So how much does a quarter hour of Clown love go for these days?"

I'm no expert, but I think asking that over the internet makes it a federal crime.

Only if you are tapped into a wifi that crosses state lines.

Re: Kermit at February 27, 2006 12:19 PM

> So how much does a quarter hour of [Angry] Clown
> love go for these days?

I think it's the same as "Pee-Wee Herman love," and therefore quite free if done in private.

Done inside Florida movie theatres, it's $50 plus community service:
http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/pee-wee-herman.html

That's assuming Angryclown has PeeWee-like equipment.

Sigh.

I start off with a note of admiration for a long-shot feat of arms by men from my anscestral country.

It ends up with Pee Wee Herman jokes.

Time to go home.

Really Mitch..

So you didn't say..

Howard Dean would say, "Germany was never any danger", and Kos would insist that "The US's goal was supposedly to free the continent, and like President Roosevelt didn't say anything about WMD's")..

No, that WAS you, not AC, and you used a totally unrelated story to make a false analogy.

Hitler was a credible threat, not a nation starved of military hardware for 12 years. He WAS involved in manufacturing WMD, not a nation uninvolved as a means to relieving international sanction. He didn't have a no-fly zone enforced, France and Britain instead didn't raise a finger over the re-occupation of the Ruhr, and capitulated on Czech "Leibensraum", as well as the Austrian plebecite.

Your retelling of history was used simply to take an unrelated shot at Dean and Kos. It was false. Dean never claimed didn't have WMD when they in fact did, Kos never claimed the war with Iraq was about WMD when it wasn't. The primary justification of this administration was that they (Iraq) had failed to comply with the U.N. resolution requiring they account for WMD (Dec 2002) - and even if EVERY OTHER REASON WERE RESOLVED, they would still go to war over the WMD as that was the paramount, primary reason. Your revisionism of that reasoning is for you to answer to yourself on, but attempting to conflate that revisionism as something the Democrats would condone in WWII is dishonest - just as your failure to recognize that you created a false historical model to blame the Dems.

Apparently, despite having virtual total control of the government, and certainly at least partity in the media, you still have to blame and hate, rather than be responsible for results.

I heard a couple minutes of NARN over the weekend, and someone (I think Ed) made the comment about lefties being extremists who don't want to have real discussion. I wanted to call in and ask, exactly who refers to Howard Dean as Mad How? Hello.... Pot, Kettle is on line 2 for you.

Fundamentally, you want to revise history to ignore your fake-up of the need to invade Iraq, to fake-up that Bush wasn't gunning for Iraq from Day 1 of his administration, and used 9/11 as a means to an end. A means to an end that has resulted in what is at best a poor situation that may turn into a disasterous one inside the country and HAS turned into a disasterous one when analyzed against its impact to our foriegn policy and our perception in the world. Now you've said in the past that basically you don't care what the rest of the world thinks, and those who have the power get to make the rules, so the rest of the world simply will have to put up with us because what are they going to do about it?... but I think we operate in a world where each life is valuable, and we won't always be dominant (already aren't except militarily in point of fact) and business interests which coopt national security, misdirect us to invade a country for political points at home and money in the pockets of CEO's, are bad things that the rest of the world will hold us to account for.

Germany learned that lesson, specifically that when the rest of the world doesn't trust you to play with big guns, thinks your intersests are so selfish that you operate essentially criminally, and that you can't piss off everyone and win. I suspect we'll be shown that lesson soon, I just wish it wasn't going to take a shooting war to get the neo-con fools to recognize might and money don't make right and that no one is an island.

PB

Mitch sighed:

"Sigh. I start off with a note of admiration for a long-shot feat of arms by men from my anscestral country. It ends up with Pee Wee Herman jokes."

Pee Wee's was a long-shot feat too.

What the hell? I read the story of the Norwegians-I'm thinking how wonderful and admirable it all is and then go to the comments section and....nothing but the usual crap from the usual suspects. WHAT is the matter with these people?! And then to twist it around as if Mitch brought up the off-subject subject! What an ass is PB and angryclown following right behind-only a bit more clever...which really doesn't cut it when ya get right down to it (plus it's not very tough to be "cleverer" than PB).

PB,

You are an empty vessel. A clanging gong. You are much fury but little substance.

You are a waste of time.

Well, I thought it was an excellent post, and reflected admirably both on Norway and on those who performed these vital missions.

But its really hard to write anything about modern Scandinavians, really, because they're just too sane, sensible, civilized, and inoffensive[1].

[1]Except to those whose entire lives are structured around the concept of rage and shared victimization, of course.

Mitch,

You are 100% correct, way to go. When I was aproaching my teen years in the late 50's there was a terrific show on on Sunday nights. It was called "The World at War" The shows were an hour long and one of them was about this very action you've decribed. It was on CBS, I believe, and even when it went into reruns after maybe ten years it remained on CBS, Sunday nights. I've probably seen that episode 8 maybe 10 times. Early History channel had reruns of "The world at war". Total times I've seen that episode? Around 12 times. Hey Mitch, here's the best part. Guess who it was narrated by? Our favorite ultra lefty liberal TV news anchor Walter Cronkite.

The "World At War" complete set is available on DVD:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005NOOH/qid=1141092633/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1979389-8401700?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

Some of you, um, commenters on this thread may want to purchase a copy and educate yourselves.

"The World at War" that I remember was narated by Laurence Olivier not Walter Cronkite. If you heard a re-edited version narated by Uncle Walt you missed the best. naration. ever.

No, seriously. I haven't seen it in 20 years and yet I still get chills remembering the pathos in that voice. I didn't find out till years later who it was.

There were a couple of different series:

"World at War" was a BBC series from the '70s, narrated by Olivier. It set a bar for history documentaries that nobody has come close to reaching in 30 years. Their "Holocaust" episode still scares the sh*t out of me, and that's after going to the Holocaust museum.

There was another series from the '50s, narrated (if memory serves) by Edward R. Murrow, on CBS, that still runs on the History Channel quite a bit, and is also excellent.

Of course, "Victory At Sea", done right after the war, was also quite a production.

Boy, those bring back memories. I agree on wholeheartedly on the Olivier series, the music still sends chills down my spine.

Oh, and Mitch, thanks for reminding me about the H* episode, its comming back to me and I'm going to have nightmares tonight for sure.

Comparing the three series, with what's been on the History Channel is really night and day as far as tone. The earlier series set high marks and seemed to state between the lines "This is history. It is important. Remember it". The recent stuff almost seems akin to "intellectual porn", and seems to be more involved in telling a story than anything else.

A while back Mitch predicted the President would be seen in a positive light within a year (because of Iraq presumably). He also, in another inane post, claimed the President's poll numbers were "hovering around 50%". Now at the time the numbers were in the mid-40's, but a few, like Fox*cough*RNC*News polls had him about at 48. Considering none of the polls actually had him over 50, the term "hovering around 50%" was a little misleading, but that's nothing new to intrepid Spew in the Dark fans.

We see today that his most recent poll numbers have him at his all-time low, because while the DPW deal probably isn't such a big deal from a Security standpoint, the Fox News/CNN copycat format adopted by so many "news" agencies has sufficiently innured the public that they no longer have much more than 10 seconds worth of attention, and frankly, they think the deal stinks because even if it isn't such a big deal from security's standpoint, Bush looks like he cares more about money than safety (which of course is true).

Perhaps Bush can move to Norway, where real heroes, like Quisling, are still appreciated.

CBSPoll, Bush approval at 34%. Considering we know that at least 35% (according to Mitch) of the country is conservative, apparently everyone and a couple conservatives too, think Bush is a failure...

Gosh, and you have control of the much of the media too.. perhaps now is the time to suggest all "bad news" be squelched, I mean, Goebbels did it, why not you too? Oh, wait, that's right, you already DO squelch the bad news here.

PB

And this is related to Norwegian World War II resistance fighters ... how?

"And this is related to Norwegian World War II resistance fighters ... how?"

It's not. But hey, give the guy another minute. We'll soon hear something about FISA.

Miss Havisham queried: "And this is related to Norwegian World War II resistance fighters ... how?"

Wow: dot, dot, dot...question. I have to remember that, Bill Whateverberg. What a powerful rhetorical device!

"And you're asking what your country can do for you, not what you can do for your country...why?"

"And judging my four little children by the color of their skin and not the content of their character is a good idea...how?"

"And you're not tearing down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev...why?"

To get back to Peeb's very intelligent comment, did you notice Cheney's approval rating is *18 percent*? Good lord, Bush could improve his standing by dumping Dick and putting bin Laden in the job.

It's not such a bad idea, after all. Bush doesn't seem any closer to killing the guy, why not set him up in D.C. where he can keep an eye on him?

The Bipolar Clown queried:

"why not set him up in D.C. where he can keep an eye on him?"

Wow, I have to remember that, Mr. Klauenstein - the rhetorically absurd substitution. What a compelling turn of phrase!

"We shall fight them on the fields, and in the streets? We shall fight them on the landing grounds? We shall never surrender? Pffft. Hitler has better approval numbers than I do in all of Europe, Chachi. I say we dump Lord Halifax and appoint Goering. That way Hitler will at least have a reason NOT to bomb us. Hey, if the best we can do is Dunkirk, what do we have to lose?"

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. So I'm appointing Lord Fear as my vice president. Cower before me, peasants!"

On the other hand, without absurd substitutions, Atrios, Kos, and Maureen Dowd would have to find other lines of work...

Mitch surveyed the other side of the fence: "On the other hand, without absurd substitutions, Atrios, Kos, and Maureen Dowd would have to find other lines of work..."

Don't be jealous. The right will always have the strawman and the false dichotomy.

"Oh, wait, that's right, you already DO squelch the bad news here."

I'm that powerful?

Who knew?

I might suggest *other news sources* if you feel I'm preventing the *whole world* from learning the "truth".

Here's a hint, oh dramatic one: my not writing about something isn't the same as "squelching".

You may now change the subject again.

I hear the word "Dichotomy", and am instantly transported back to seventh-grade biology class, dissecting lima beans to find the "cotyledin".

"Dicotyledin" would be a genetic mutation.

That'd be so cool.

From Miriam Webster:
Main Entry: di·chot·o·my
Pronunciation: dI-'kä-t&-mE also d&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
1 : a division or the process of dividing into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities
2 : the phase of the moon or an inferior planet in which half its disk appears illuminated
3 a : BIFURCATION; especially : repeated bifurcation (as of a plant's stem) b : a system of branching in which the main axis forks repeatedly into two branches c : branching of an ancestral line into two equal diverging branches
4 : something with seemingly contradictory qualities

So Acording to the Clown the Right will always have a false what, exactly? Half Moon?

False half moon?

Angryclown has ass implants?

Oh, did I say "The World at War"? It was "The Twentieth Century". Sorry, my bad.It was a great series and it was hosted by Walter Cronkite.

Poor Peanut Butter and Jagoff can't manage to stay on topic, showing off his A.D.D. If you want to start a new subject why don't you try starting your own website. I'd be glad to come over and burn a sh*tload of you bandwidth.

As for: He's Angry
AND
He IS a Clown,

Put downs, insults, name calling, changing the subject, and making things up, passing for intellectual reasoning in that incredibly minute (long i sound) brain you have there, while admiring how cool you think you are, is reflective of Democrats everywhere AND entertaining to me. But seriously, no amount of A.D.D. medicine is going to help you.

Pubis 2001 observed: "He's Angry AND He IS a Clown."

Gee, Pube, wherever did you come up with that devastating put-down? A master of the obvious you are.

Seriously, you sad little wingnuts can't do anything better to Angryclown's blog name?

Nope. It's that false bifurcation we suffer from.

"Seriously, you sad little wingnuts can't do anything better to Angryclown's blog name? "

I dunno - I thought riding a tight thread from "Dichotomy" to "Clown has Ass Implants" was, if not comedy gold, at least worthy payback for heisting my paeon to my anscestral people.

What I REALLY need to do is provoke an insult war between Joshua (the disciple of overkill) and AC (the master of understatement, except in headgear and, apparently, cosmetic surgery).

Oh stop it. Nobody believes you're Norwegian. Well, at least I bet JBDoubtless doesn't believe it.

As for understatement, "less is more" I always say.

No wait, that's what Kermit says when he whips out his froghood and Mrs. Kermit dissolves into helpless giggles for the thousandth time.

I think I understand Angryclown a little better now. Several years ago ther was a movie titled "Carney" starring Gary Busey, Robbie Robertson and Jodie Foster. AC must have spent his formative years sitting on that collapsable seat goading the rubes into buying balls to throw at the little target. How else could he have honed his formidable wit into such an array of genitalia jokes? I can see him now, greasepaint running from his 20th plunge.

Thanks for reminding me of the Vermork raid.
Now interpret the meaning of my E-mail address.

Thanks' Roy W.

I'm suspecting you own either a Swedish Mauser or a Krag-Jorgensson.

Krag-Jorgensson rules!